A Review Methodology of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: Objectives and Actions to Promote Cycling and Pedestrian Mobility
In the previous decade, the European Commission, among its policies to increase sustainability and the quality of life in European cities, has introduced the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). The concepts brought forward in this novel planning approach further focus on sustainable transport modes, such as cycling and pedestrian mobility, which are two of the main issues included in SUMP. The European challenge is to integrate long-term planning perspectives and short-term actions. In this context, the aim of this paper is to analyze and classify the objectives and actions proposed in the SUMP adopted by European cities, focusing on the policies for improving cycling and pedestrian mobility. Therefore a review methodology is proposed in order to verify their coherence with the European guidelines, classifying objectives and actions for the promotion of cycling and pedestrian mobility. The research required that each of a set of SUMPs, adopted by various European cities, be analyzed and classified in order to identify the objectives and the planned actions and to verify the presence of qualitative and quantitative indicators, therefore presenting a first application of the proposed methodology. The results show how the cities follow the European policies relative to urban mobility in terms of objectives and actions and, in particular, in relation to cycling and pedestrian mobility. All cities in the sample set goals to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by means of: the modernization and adaptation of the existing cycling paths and pedestrian walkways; and the construction of new long-distance cycle paths and of new pedestrian walkways and public areas that are comfortable for pedestrians. This work can be useful in order to verify the implementation of the sustainable urban planning process, establishing a benchmark process useful for other cities to follow.
KeywordsIntegrated urban planning Walkable cities Innovative and integrated infrastructures
- Cirianni, F., Panuccio, P., & Rindone, C. (2013). A comparison of urban planning systems between the UK and Italy: Commercial development and city logistic plan. WIT Transactions On The Built Environment, 1, 785–797.Google Scholar
- CiViTAS (2012). CIVITAS guide for the urban transport professional results and lessons of long-term evaluation of the CIVITAS initiative. Retrieved April 2017, from www.civitas.eu/guide_ebook/index.phpandwww.Civitas—initiative.eu/docs/2086/CIVITAS_Guide_For_The_Urban_Transport_Professional.pdf.
- Cordera, R., Coppola, P., Dell’Olio, L., & Ibeas A. (2016). Is accessibility relevant in trip generation? Modelling the interaction between trip generation and accessibility taking into account spatial effects. Transportation, 1–27.Google Scholar
- ELTIS (2014). Do the right mix, SUMP award. Retrieved September 2017, from http://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/project-partners/do-right-mix-sump-award.
- Esztergár-Kiss, D., & Rózsa, Z. (2015). Simulation results for a daily activity chain optimization method. 2015 International conference on models and technologies for intelligent transportation systems (pp. 259–264). MT-ITS 2015 7223265.Google Scholar
- European Commission EC. (2007). Green paper. Towards a new culture for urban mobility. Retrieved April 2017, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0551&from=EN.
- European Commission EC. (2009). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Action plan on urban mobility. Retrieved April 2017, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0490.
- European Commission EC. (2011). White Paper. Roadmap to a single european transport area—Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. Retrieved April 2017, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN.
- European Commission EC. (2013a). European innovation partnership on smart cities and communities. Strategic Implementation Plan. Retrieved April, 2017, from http://www.ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/files/sip_final_en.pdf.
- European Commission EC. (2013b). Guidelines. Developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan. Retrieved April 2017, from http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/files/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-a-sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf.
- European Commission EC. (2013c). Urban mobility package. Retrieved September 2017, from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/ump_en.
- European Commission EC. (2014). European innovation partnership on smart cities and communities. Operational Implementation Plan. Retrieved April, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/files/operational-implementation-plan-oip-v2_en.pdf.
- European Commission EC. (2016). Quality of life in European cities 2015. Retrieved April 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/urban/survey2015_en.pdf.
- European Commission EC. (2017). Urban mobility package. Retrieved September 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/europe-move-commission-launches-new-transport-package.
- Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. ISBN: 9781597269841. Island: Press.Google Scholar
- Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Litman, T. A. (2017). Evaluating active transport benefits and costs. guide to valuing walking and cycling improvements and encouragement programs. Columbia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Retrieved April 2017, from http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.
- OECD (2012), List of urban areas by country. Retrieved September, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/all.pdf.
- United Nations. (2017). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Retrieved April, 2017, from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
- Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5(3), 65–72.Google Scholar